[lbrandy]

I struggle to resonate with what you are saying, as my experience is the opposite. I'm curious where this discrepancy is rooted. Reckless hypothesis: are you working on majority latency or majority throughput sensitive systems?

I have seen so, so, so many examples of systems where latencies, including and especially tail latencies, end up mattering substantially and where java becomes a major liability.

In my experience, actually, carefully controlling things like p99 latency is actually the most important reason C++ is preferred rather than the more vaguely specified "performance".

[ianlevesque]

The specific example that comes to mind was translating a Java application doing similarity search on a large dataset into fairly naive Rust doing the same. Throughput I guess. It may be possible to optimize Rust to get there but it’s also possible to (and in this case did) end up with less understandable code that runs at 30% the speed.

Edit: And probably for that specific example it’d be best to go all the way to some optimized library like FAISS, so maybe C++ still wins?

[grumpyprole]

I've seen C++ systems that are considerably slower than equivalent Java systems, despite the lack of stack allocation and boxing in Java. It's mostly throughput, malloc is slow, the C++ smart pointers cause memory barriers and the heap fragments. Memory management for complex applications is hard and the GC often gives better results.

[vvanders]

I've seen so may flat profiles due to shared_ptr. Rust has done a lot of things right but one thing it really did well was putting a decent amount of friction into std::sync::Arc<T>(and offering std::rc::Rc<T> when you don't want atomics!) vs &mut T or even Box<T>. Everyone reaches for shared_ptr when 99% of the time unique_ptr is the correct option.

[memefrog]

I see comments like yours more than I see anyone suggesting actually using shared_ptr widely. In my experience, most people (that use smart pointers - many do not) prefer to use unique_ptr where they can.

[vvanders]

I don't think anyone is suggesting shared_ptr explicitly, more that if you're coming from Python/Java/etc it's a similar to a GC memory model and a bit more familiar if that's where your experience is. I've observed in a number of codebases unless you're setting a standard of unique_ptr by default it's fairly easy for shared_ptr to become widely used.

FWIW I consider shared_ptr a bit of a code-smell that you don't have your ownership model well understood, there are cases to use it but 90% of the time you can eliminate it with a more explicit design(and avoid chances of leaks + penalties from atomics).

[memefrog]

Bear in mind that my ultimate perspective is that you shouldn't use smart pointers (or C++) at all.

But even if you think they have some value, it isn't a flaw in a language if it's not immediately obvious how to write code in it for people that are new to it. If you're coming from Python or Java, then learn how to write C++. There are probably as many books on C++ as on any other language out there.

[deterministic]

Badly written C++ will be as slow as well written Java. Absolutely. But there is no way any Java code will perform better than well optimised C++. High performance C++ use custom allocators to completely avoid using malloc (for example).

[Gibbon1]

From my experience with embedded coding you are correct. Most stuff lives and dies enclosed in a single call chain and isn't subject to spooky action at a distance. And stuff that is I often firewall it behind a well tested API.